G.R. Nos.

78813-14 November 8, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FARHAD HATANI y ABOLHASSAN, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Nestor I. Madlansacay, counsel de parte for accused-appellant.
Nasser A. Marohomsalic, collaborating counsel for accused-appellant.

QUIASON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 105, Quezon City,
convicting appellant in Criminal Cases No. Q-11867 and No. Q-11868.
The dispositive portion of the decision in Criminal Case No. Q-11867 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Farhad Hatani
y Abolhassan, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal practice of medicine in
violation of R.A. 2382 otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959 (Secs. 8, 10)
penalized by Section 28 thereof with "a fine of not less than one thousand pesos
nor more than ten thousand pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, or by imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five
years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court; and
considering the circumstances of the case and the ignominy caused by him to his
two teen-aged, female, then unmarried victims, this Court exercising its discretion
granted under said Section 28 of the law, hereby SENTENCES said accused
FARHAD HATANI Y ABOLHASSAN to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency AND to suffer
imprisonment of five (5) years; and to pay the costs.
This Court further recommends that after service of his sentence the accused be
deported as undesirable alien (Rollo, p. 35).
The dispositive portion of the decision in Criminal Case No. Q-11868 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused, FARHAD
HATANI y ABOLHASSAN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
punishable under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby
SENTENCES said accused to suffer life imprisonment orreclusion perpetua; and
to indemnify the complainant, Precila Borja, in the sum of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) and to pay costs (Rollo, p. 41).
The information in Criminal Case No. Q-11867 charged appellant with illegal practice of
medicine, in violation of R.A. No. 2382, otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959, committed
as follows:

That on or about the 6th day of July, 1979, in Quezon City, Philippines the above
named accused, knowing fully well that he has not satisfactorily passed the
corresponding Board Examination, neither is he a holder of a valid Certificate of
Registration duly issued by the Board of Medical Examiners, as in fact he does
not even appear to have taken or completed the course leading to a medical
degree, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for compensation,
fee and salary, paid to him directly, physically examined Priscila (sic) Borja Y
Loquero and Wilma Borja Y Loquero, diagnosed, treated and administer
injections on the persons of Prescila (sic) Borja Y Loquero and Wilma Borja Y
Loquero, in Violation of Section 10, in relation to Section 28, Republic Act No.
2382 (Records, Vol. I, p. 1).
The information in Criminal Case No. Q-11868, charged appellant with Rape, committed as
follows:
That on or about the 6th day of July, 1979, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, with lewd designs, and while she was deprived of reason
or unconscious after having been drugged or administered medicine, did, then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the
undersigned PRECILA BORJA Y LOQUERO without her consent and against her
will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded under the
provisions of the Civil Code (Records, Vol. II, p. 1).
It appears that in the morning of July 6, 1979, Agustina Borja visited her comadre, Maura
Fontreras, and requested malunggay leaves as medication for her 16-year old daughter, Precila,
who had high fever and loose bowel movement. Upon learning that Precila was sick, Marita,
Maura's daughter, introduced Agustina to her husband, appellant herein, whom she said was a
medical doctor. Marita suggested that her husband treat Precila and Agustina agreed.
Appellant and Marita went to the Borja residence, where he examined Precila. He gave her
tablets to take and administered two injections (to her), one in the morning and the second at
noon. After each injection, Precila would feel dizzy and fall asleep.
It was appellant's diagnosis that Precila was a drug addict and required further observation and
treatment. Appellant offered to attend to Precila at his house and again, Agustina agreed in the
belief that her daughter was a drug addict.
In the evening of the same day, Precila was fetched by appellant and Marita and was brought to
appellant's house. Again, Precila was given an injection which caused her to sleep. When she
awoke, she realized that she was naked and her entire body was in pain. Appellant was seated
on the bed and was fondling her private parts. Shocked, Precila called for her mother and tried to
get up. Appellant, however, punched her on the chest and forced her to lie down. He pressed a
pillow on her face and injected her again, causing her to fall asleep.
When Precila awoke the second time, she found appellant in bed with her. He was naked and
fondling her private parts. The pain all over her body lingered. When Precila touched her private
parts, she saw blood stains on her hand. She tried to stand up but she was too weak. Appellant
gave her another injection rendering her unconscious.
The following morning, Agustina went to fetch Precila. Upon reaching the Fontreras' residence,
she went straight to the bedroom, where, to her great dismay, she found Precila and appellant
both asleep and naked. She hurriedly dressed up Precila and brought her home.

When Precila woke up, she noticed she was already home and her mother was crying. Precila
remained dizzy, with throbbing pains all over her body. When talked to, she was incoherent.
That evening, Precila's oldest sister, Josefina, a nurse by profession, came home and saw
Precila looking very weak. Her mother, who was crying narrated what she had witnessed that
morning. She also told Josefina that appellant was in the other bedroom, treating another sister,
Wilma whom he also diagnosed as a drug addict. Josefina immediately proceeded to the
bedroom and saw appellant about to inject Wilma.
Josefina saw the open bag of appellant, which contained empty capsules of dalmane and empty
vials of valium. She inquired on the need of the injection and appellant replied that a second shot
of plain distilled water was required to cure Wilma of her drug addiction. Josefina told appellant to
stop but he persisted. Only upon threat that she would call the police did appellant stop.
Appellant and his wife then left the Borja residence.
The following day, Agustina and Josefina brought Precila and Wilma to the Philippine
Constabulary Headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City, where Josefina and Wilma gave their
statements (Exhs. "D" and "F"). Precila was physically examined by a doctor, whose medical
report stated that Precila's hymen and "deep, healing lacerations" and that "subject is in nonvirgin state physically" (Exh. A). Several needle puncture marks were also found on Precila's
arms and buttocks.
A physical examination was likewise done on Wilma, which showed that she too had a needle
puncture, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report (Exh. "L").
Acting on the complaint filed before the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), a surveillance
of appellant's residence was conducted. Subsequently, a search warrant was secured from
Judge Jose P. Castro of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. Armed with the warrant,
CANU agents raided appellant's residence on July 15, 1979.
Assorted drugs, such as dalmane, valium and mogadon, as well as prescription pads in the
name of Dr. Jesus Yap (Exhs. "H" "H-4") and other medical instruments, such as a "thermometer,
a "hygomonometer (sic), stethoscope, syringes and needles, were seized.
The Handwriting Identification Report (Exh. "I") on the prescription slips showed that these were
written by the appellant himself. The report on the chemistry examination of the seized tablets
and capsules (Exhs. "J" "J-1") confirmed the presence of mogadon, dalmane and valium.
After the preliminary investigation, separate informations for rape and violation of R.A. No. 2382
were filed. Appellant pleaded not guilty to both crimes.
The defense's version is that in the evening of July 6, 1976, Agustina and Precila Borja visited
the mother-in-law of the appellant, Maura Fontreras. In the course of the conversation, Agustina
asked Marita if she could help Precila. Marita obliged and agreed to take care of Precila for the
night and allow her to sleep in her bedroom.
Precila and Marita chatted the whole night. Accordingly, Precila confessed that she was not really
sick. She merely related her personal problems, involving her parents. She also admitted her
vice, such as drinking, smoking and taking drugs.
Their talk lasted until the wee hours of the morning and during their conversation, appellant
would occasionally enter the room but he never joined their discussion.

Precila and Marita shared the same bed. Appellant; who was wearing only his pajama pants,
slept on the floor at the opposite end of the room.
The following morning Agustina arrived and Marita related some of Precila's problems. Nothing
untoward happened that day and Agustina headed for home while Precila and Marita followed
later.
At past midnight of July 15, 1979, a raid was conducted by CANU agents in the house of the
appellant under the supervision of C1C Agustin Timbol, Jr. The raid was made upon Josefina's
complaint for illegal possession of drugs.
Appellant and his wife were driven out of their bedroom, while three-men remained. Later,
appellant was called to join them in the bedroom and he was shocked to see assorted drugs
scattered around. Appellant denied owning them. Photographs were taken of him with the drugs.
A barangay official was called to attest to the list of the confiscated drugs. Appellant, however,
refused to sign the said list.
C1C Timbol offered to fur the case in exchange of money. Instead of acceding, appellant
demanded to see the search warrant. C1C Timbol failed to show a warrant on the pretext that
they were military men without need of any identification or search warrant. Appellant, his wife
and brother-in-law were forced to join C1C Timbol for questioning in Camp Crame. Upon
boarding the van, appellant saw Josefina aboard kissing C1C Timbol and both exchanged victory
signs.
The trial court rendered two separate decisions and convicted the appellant of both crimes. In
finding appellant guilty of illegal purchase of medicine, considerable weight was given to the
prosecution's exhibits.
The Professional Regulation Commission certified that appellant is not among the list of
registered physicians nor among those with special permit to practice medicine in a limited scope
(Exh. "K").
Appellant failed to refute the Handwriting Identification Report (Exh. "I") released by the PC
Crime Laboratory showing that the signature of Dr. Jesus D. Yap (Exhs. "H" "H-4") prescribing
medicine belonged to him. The pictures also taken during the raid (Exhs. "G" - "G-8'" undeniably
reveal several medical equipment used by practicing physicians.
Notwithstanding the trial court's finding that there was no direct evidence of rape, it concluded
that circumstantial evidence indicate that rape was consummated by appellant considering the
following:
1. The medico-legal examination of victim Precila, taken on July 8, 1979 at 10:25
in the morning or less than 48 hours from the evening of July 6, 1979 found
"hymen with deep, healing lacerations at 4, 6 and 9 o'clock position"; thus
indicating that the lacerations were recent as they are in the process of healing;
(Exh. "A-1")
2. The above undeniable findings of the expert confirms the statement of the
victim, a young girl of 16 or 17 years of age, that when she held private parts
which were painful then, she noticed blood. (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9, 1984, pp. 4-5).

The fresh laceration of the hymen further confirms the carnal assault. (People vs. Ocampo, L47335, Aug. 13, 1986)
3. In the two short waking moments of the victim she noticed she was naked and
beside her on the same bed was the accused, also naked. (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9,
1984, pp. 3-5)
4. The accused, then 21 years of age was in the prime of youth, and the
unconscious girl beside him was just 16 or 17 years of age, thus in the full bloom
of womanhood. The sexual excitement on the part of the accused was therefore
exceedingly great.
5. When the mother, Agustina, came into the room of the accused that early
morning of July 7, 1979 she saw her daughter and the accused on the same bed
and both naked. (tsn., Rogato, Jan. 27, 1981, p. 9)
6. The medico-legal found several needle puncture marks on the arms and
buttocks of Precila (Exh. "A"); thus confirming Precila's testimony that she had
been injected by the accused, rendering her unconscious (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9,
1984, pp. 4-5; tsn., Nenita, May 21, 1984, pp. 3-6; also pp. 29-30).
7. The medico-legal found the victim "in non-virgin state physically." (Exh; "A-i")
8. At the time of the medico-legal examination, i.e. morning of July 8, 1979, the
victim was found to be "incoherent." (Exh. A) after effect of the injections or
drugs.
9. At the time of the incident (July 6, 1979) the Borjas and Frontreras ( sic) were
"comadres" and neighbors. There is no enmity between and among them.
10. Between accused and Marita on one hand, and the victim, her mother, and
sisters, on the other hand, there was no misunderstanding before the incident.
There is absolutely absence of any ulterior motive for the teen-aged victim or her
family to file the serious charge of rape which would expose her to
embarrassment of examination of her private parts and public trial (Rollo, pp. 3839).
In his first assignment of error, appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Appellant faults complainant for recounting her ordeal only after four years when she took the
witness stand. This argument is misleading. The record shows that the day after the rape,
Josefina and Wilma Borja, accompanied by their mother, Agustina, issued their statements at
Camp Crame. Agustina gave her statement twice on separate days. Precila did not give any
statement due to her weak condition but it cannot be denied that she was instead physically
examined. Suffice it to say, the Medico Legal Report (Exh. "A") indicates swellings and
lacerations and concludes that Precila was no longer a virgin. Although the records fail to show
any sworn statement by Precila, such is not fatal where the sworn affidavits of her mother, her
two sisters and the medico-legal report are sufficient to show probable cause of rape (People v.
Yambao, 193 SGRA 571 [1991]).
Precila was either dizzy or unconscious at the time she was sexually abused. We find her
testimony consistent and credible. While her testimony is limited to the times when she would

gain her consciousness, it is not unlikely that such traumatic incidents would still be engraved on
her mind even four years after.
Appellant's assertion that Precila failed to inform her family of his misdeeds is explainable. As
correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Precila was still dizzy and incoherent as a
consequence of the injections administered by appellant. In fact, when Precila was physically
examined by the doctor the day after, she was still sleepy and groggy (TSN, March 31, 1980, pp.
7-8).
Appellant also finds it strange that considering the acts allegedly committed by him against
Precila, the medico-legal report fails to specify any injuries on the body of Precila. Appellant need
not inflict heavy blows on Precila for the simple reason that she was under sedation. The
absence of the injuries does not negate the commission of rape (People v. Torrevillas, 203 SCRA
576 [1991]; People v. Arenas, 198 172 [1991]) for rape may be committed after rendering a
woman unconscious (Art. 335, Revised Penal Code; People v. Gerones, 193 SCRA 263 [1991]).
Appellant alleges that Precila was no longer a virgin on that fateful day and that her bleeding was
actually the start of her menstrual cycle. It is settled jurisprudence that virginity is not an essential
element of rape (People v. Corro, 197 SCRA 121 [1991]; People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543
[1991]). To claim that Precila's menstrual cycle began on that day is highly speculative.
Appellant claims that the sworn statements of the Borjas (Exhs. "D", "E" and "F") were antedated
and were prepared after the illegal search was conducted in his residence. He also cites some
inconsistencies in said statements. We find the claim to be devoid of merit. It is only now on
appeal that appellant disputes the execution of these affidavits. When they were presented and
offered as evidence, appellant failed to raise such objections and to refute them.
The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses merely refer to minor
details, which cannot destroy their credibility (People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 [1991]). This is
also true where statements made while on the witness stand are claimed to be inconsistent with
the affidavit, which are generally incomplete (People v. Lagota, 194 SCRA 92 [1991]; People v.
Avanzado, 158 SCRA 427 [1988]).
With regard to the second assignment of error, appellant insists that his conviction arose from
insufficient evidence and his failure to prove his innocence.
Indeed, the circumstantial evidence established at the trial are more than sufficient to prove the
guilt of appellant. The Medico-Legal Report on Precila, taken within 48 hours from the
commission of rape confirmed that her hymen had "deep, healing lacerations at 4, 6 and 9
o'clock position" and Precila was "in non-virgin state physically" (Exh. "A"). Furthermore, the
report confirms that Precila had at least six needle puncture marks and swellings, which confirm
that appellant had injected her several times.
On the two occasions that Precila woke up, she positively stated that appellant was with her on
the bed and that they were both naked. She also tried to free herself on both attempts from
accused, but, he made her unconscious through injections (TSN, February 9, 1984, pp. 3-5).
This is corroborated by the testimony of Agustina, who saw her daughter and accused together
naked on bed (TSN, January 27, 1981, p. 9). These unbroken chain of events leads one to a fair
and reasonable conclusion that accused actually raped Precila.

As held in People v. Yambao, supra, credence is given to the findings of the trial court where the
rape victim's testimony is buttressed by the corroborative testimony of the mother and the
medico-legal report, as well as the report of the police investigator.
It must also be borne in mind that at the time of the commission of the crime, Precila was just
sixteen years old. No young lady at the prime of her youth would concoct a story of defloration,
allow an examination of her intimate parts and later bare herself to the disgrace brought to her
honor in a public trial unless she was motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit
apprehended and brought to justice (People v. Patilan, 197 SCRA 354 [1991]; People v. Yambao,
193 SCRA 571 [1991]).
Appellant claims that his right to be presumed innocent was violated. He cites the trial court's
decision holding that it.
. . . finds that with these circumstantial evidences (sic) pieced together the
prosecution has proved the crime of rape, and the burden shifted on the defense
to show the contrary (Rollo, p. 40).
Appellant was afforded a fair trial and in fact he availed of surrebuttal evidence. The statement of
the trial court, as correctly argued by the Solicitor General, implies that the circumstantial
evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction unless the defense is able to provide
evidence to the contrary.
With respect to his conviction of illegal practice of medicine, appellant presented inconsistent
claims. On one hand, he claims that the drugs and other paraphernalia were planted by the
raiding team; while on the other hand, he claims that these were seized without any warrant.
If indeed the evidence were all planted, how can appellant explain his handwriting on the
prescription pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap? A perusal of the photographs showing accused
during the raid, fails to indicate any protestation by him. In fact, the other photographs (Exhs. "Gl", "G-2", "G-4" "G-8") do not bear any sign of disorder, in contrast to appellant's testimony that
his room was made into a mess during the raid.
The records fail to disclose a copy of a search warrant. However, the prosecution was able to
present its return (Exh. "ZZ") and we are satisfied that indeed a lawful search warrant was
obtained. Besides, the judge who granted the search warrant was the same judge who initially
heard both criminal cases. It can therefore be presumed, that the search was made with a search
warrant and absent of any showing that it was procured maliciously, the items seized are
admissible in evidence (People v. Umali, 193 SCRA 493 [1991]).
The evidence is overwhelming that appellant actually treated and diagnosed Precila and Wilma
Borja. The positive testimony of Agustina, Precila, Wilma and Josefina Borja; the medico-legal
reports (Exhs. "A", "A-7", "C", "L" and "L-1") which attest to the needle marks; the Handwriting
Identification Report (Exh. I); the photographs (Exhs. "G-l "G-8") showing assorted drugs and
medical equipment in appellant's room; and the chemistry reports (Exhs. "J" "J-1") prove that
appellant was engaged in the practice of medicine. And as to his allegation that there was no
proof of payment, the law specifically punishes said act whether or not done for a fee.
Appellant claims that Precila admitted in her cross-examination that she was in school the whole
day of July 6, 1979 and it was therefore impossible for him to have treated and diagnosed her on
that date. An accurate reading of the transcript, however, will show that Precila's testimony was
in response to a question regarding her school schedule for that day.

Finally, appellant claims that the ponente of both decisions was not the trial judge, ergo said
judge was thus deprived of the opportunity to assess the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Admittedly, the ponente's participation was limited to the resolution of the cases. The fact that the
judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment, and for that reason the
latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but
merely relied on the records of the case, does not render the judgment erroneous (People v.
Ramos, Jr., 203 SCRA 237 [1991]; People v. Villamayor, 199 SCRA 472 [1991]), especially
where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion.
WHEREFORE, the judgments appealed from are AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 186387

Present:
VELASCO, JR., J.,Chairperson,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
MENDOZA, and
SERENO, JJ.

- versus -

JUAN MENDOZA y VICENTE,

Accused-Appellant.

Promulgated:
August 31, 2011

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal assailing the June 5, 2008 Decision[1]of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. HC-No. 02734 which affirmed with modification
the February 6, 2007Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City,
Branch 61 (RTC). The RTC found accused Juan Mendoza y Vicente guilty of
having violated Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Version of the Prosecution

The evidence for the prosecution shows that Senior Police Officer 4
Edelfonso Sison (SPO4 Sison) received information from a long-serving
unidentified informant of the Baguio City Police Offices (BCPO) Drug
Enforcement Section (DES) that the accused contacted him and offered to
sell shabu worth P1,000.00 to any interested buyer. The accused then suggested
that they meet at the stairs of the Cresencia Barangay Hall along Bokawkan
Road.
After interviewing the informant, Police Senior Inspector Myles Pascual
(PSI Pascual) decided to conduct a buy-bust operation to entrap the
accused. PSI Pascual made arrangements for the informant, the accused, and
the poseur buyer officer to meet on April 14, 2005 around 2:30 oclock in the
afternoon at the stairs below the Cresencia Barangay Hall along Bokawkan
Road. He planned for an entrapment operation and put together a team, with
SPO4 Sison, as team leader; Police Officer 3 Ricky Calamiong (PO3
Calamiong) and PO3 Roy Mateo (PO3 Mateo), as back-up officers; and Police
Officer 2 Edgar Antolin (PO2 Antolin), as the poseur buyer.
In coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),
the entrapment team proceeded to the area at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon, half
an hour before the scheduled time. The team parked their vehicle 20 to 30
meters away from the designated transaction area. PO2 Antolin and the
informant alighted and proceeded to the stairway to wait for the accused.
Twenty minutes later, the accused arrived and approached the informant.
The latter introduced PO2 Antolin as the buyer. After the accused asked if the
buyer had the money, PO2 Antolin handed over P1,000.00. The accused then
gave him two (2) sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Antolin
raised his right hand, the pre-arranged signal, signifying to the other team
members that the transaction had been consummated. The team rushed to assist
PO2 Antolin, who arrested the accused and recovered the buy-bust-money. PO2
Antolin frisked the accused and recovered five (5) more small transparent
sachets with white crystalline substance from the pants pocket of the accused.
He turned over the same to the team leader, SPO4 Sison.
SPO4 Sison informed the accused in Tagalog the reason why he was
being arrested and apprised him of his constitutional rights. The accused merely
nodded but otherwise kept silent.[3] The buy-bust team then took the accused to
the BCPO, where PO2 Antolin identified him as Juan Mendoza, alias Ampi.
In a preliminary test, the white crystalline substance recovered from the
accused tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
or shabu, a dangerous drug.[4] The case records state that after the conduct of

such preliminary test, the items confiscated from the accused were turned over
to the Philippine National Police (PNP)Crime Laboratory Service at Camp
Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for further analysis and disposition.[5]

A confirmatory test conducted on the same day by Police Inspector and

Forensic Chemical Officer Cecile Akiangan Bullong yielded the same result.[6]
Version of the Accused
The accused alleges that in the afternoon of April 14, 2005, he was
walking down Sepic Road, Baguio City, on his way home from his brothers
house in Guisad, where he had just finished washing diapers and clothes. A
vehicle stopped beside him and SPO4 Sison alighted. The accused knew SPO4
Sison because the latter arrested him for a drug offense way back in 1997, for
which he was convicted and incarcerated in Camp Sampaguita for five years.
SPO4 Sison showed him a photograph and demanded information about
the person in the photo. When he insisted that he did not know who it was,
SPO4 Sison invited him to the BCPO-DES. As he could not decline, he went
along with him.
At the DES, the police again asked him if he knew the person in the photo
and a certain Gary Chua, but he replied in the negative. He was also questioned
whether he knew someone who was selling drugs, and he again replied in the
negative. He told the police that since his release from prison, he no longer
dabbled in the drug trade, as he already had a family. When he told SPO4 Sison
that he did not know anyone who was selling drugs, SPO4 Sison got angry.
After an hour, he was informed that he would be subjected to a drug test.
Again, unable to refuse, he was subjected to a drug test at the BCPO Station 7
laboratory, in front of the DES. He was then brought to the Baguio General
Hospital (BGH) for a medical examination, and later back to the police station.
During the interrogation at the police office, he did not have a counsel
present.[7] SPO4 Sison did not inform him that he was being arrested for the
possession of the 5 heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu.[8]
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision dated February 6, 2007, the RTC found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt in both Criminal Case No. 24384-R and Criminal Case
No. 24385-R. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 24384-R, judgment is
rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt
and he is hereby sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of 500,000.00 and in Criminal Case No. 24385-R, judgment is
rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt
and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of
Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Fourteen (14) Years, and to pay
the costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision[10] dated June 5, 2008, the CA affirmed with modification
the RTC decision. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for
lack of merit. The Decision dated 06 February 2007 of the Regional
Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61 finding the accused-appellant
JUAN MENDOZA Y VICENTE guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in
Criminal Case Nos. 24384-R and 24385-R and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500,00[0].00,
and the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
fourteen
(14)
years,
respectively,
is AFFIRMED
with
MODIFICATION in that said accused-appellant is hereby ordered to
pay a fine of300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 24385-R.
SO ORDERED.[11]

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
In his Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant,[12] the accused
submits that the court a quo erred:
In not finding that the procedures for the custody and
disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 were not complied with, rendering the evidence
compromised.

In convicting the accused-appellant notwithstanding the

fact that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
[13]

Ruling of the Court

The Court finds the arguments of the accused bereft of merit.
In crimes involving the sale of illegal drugs, two essential elements must
be satisfied: (1) identities of the buyer, the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[14]
In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other
hand, it must be shown that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an
object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
said drug.[15] In this case, all these elements were satisfactorily proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through testimonial, documentary and
object evidence presented during the trial. PO2 Antolin, the designated poseurbuyer, testified as to the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the
accused, and the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs recovered from the
accused. [16] Then, SPO4 Sison corroborated PO2 Antolins testimony and
confirmed that all the confiscated items recovered from the accused were turned
over to him as team leader.[17]

The accused also argues that the procedure in the custody and disposition
of the dangerous drugs was not observed. The Court finds, however, that the
compliance with the chain of custody rule was sufficiently established in this
case.
In the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the following links must
be established: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.[18]

Regarding the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to

the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, the parties admitted the
following facts during pre-trial:
1.

The fact that the forensic chemist examined the drugs and prepared
the report thereon but qualified that it did not come from the
accused;

2. Medico-legal Report;
3. The witnesses to the inventory witnessed the inventory taking, signed
the inventory but they have no knowledge that the drugs came from
the accused.
4. Order of detention, booking sheet and preliminary test;
5. Existence of the pre-operation report and the request for drug test.
[19]
[Emphases supplied]

The prosecution also presented several documents that traced how the
evidence changed hands.
The Inventory in the Presence of Witnesses[20] (Exhibit D) listed six
small transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets, each weighing approximately 0.3g
and containing white crystalline substance suspected to be Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu, previously marked as ECA 04/14/05[21], and showed
the corresponding photos taken during the inventory (Exhibit N).[22]
The Certificate of Preliminary Test[23] (Exhibit F) prepared under the
signature of Marites Vizcara Tamio of the BCPO DES and addressed to the
Baguio City Prosecutor, certified that on April 14, 2005, at 3:00 oclock in the
afternoon, she conducted a preliminary test on the same marked items [24] by
using Simons reagent on the white crystalline substance contained in the
individually heat-sealed plastic sachets. All the items yielded a dark blue
color, indicating the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. The same certificate stated that the alleged confiscated pieces
of evidence were turned over the to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service at Camp
Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for chemistry analysis and disposition.
Finally, Chemistry Report No. D-044-2005[25] (Exhibit G)[26] issued by
the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Bado Dangwa, La
Trinidad, Benguetstated that following a qualitative examination conducted on
the same marked items,[27] it was found that the specimens produced a positive
result for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

The illegal drugs subject of the buy-bust transaction and those recovered
from the person of the accused were positively identified by PO2 Antolin,
marked and presented as evidence during trial:
Q

x x x I am showing you two sachets marked as Exhibit A

ECA. 04/14/05 BB and a signature. Now tell us the relation of
these sachets which the accused gave to you in exchange of
the 1,000.00?

WITNESS:
A

These are the buy bust item, sir.

PROS. CATRAL:
Q
A

Now what does ECA stands (sic) for again?

Edgar Cortes Antolin, sir.

Q
A

And that will be you

Yes, sir.

Q
A

And 04/14/05 would be the date of the transaction?

Yes, sir.

Q
A

And BB. What would those letters mean?

buy bust, sir.

Q
A

How about this signature, whose signature would that be?

My signature, sir.

xxx
Q

I am presenting to you five sachets which your office marked as

Exhibit CDEF and G with the marking ECA, 04/14/05 signature
and a letter R. Are these the same items which you referred a
while back?
Yes, sir.

And for the record, what does ECA stands (sic) for?

WITNESS:
A

Edgar Cortes Antolin, sir.

PROS. CATRAL:
Q
A

And what does 04/14/05 means (sic)?

The date, sir.

Q
A

The date of what?

The date of the transaction, sir.

Q
A

And what does R in the five sachets represents (sic)?

Recovered, sir.

PROS. CATRAL:
For purposes of identification, may we have the two sachets
marked as BB be marked as Exhibit M-1 and M-2 which are the
subject for sale and the other five other sachets with marking R
be marked as M-3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to constitute the charge for
possession.
COURT:
Mark it. [28]

From the foregoing circumstances, it is unmistakable that there is no

break in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs from the time that it
came to the possession of PO2 Antolin to the point when such items were
presented and identified during trial. Clearly, there is no doubt that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved, in
compliance with what the law requires.
WHEREFORE, the June 5, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. HC-No. 02734 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.